In other words, the dynamical "tri-sections" of the angles have a strength component because of one of the meanings of the word "kentron" which means to goad or prod to action. This kind of division is about how motivated a planet is to act. Partly planets that are cadent in this way are ineffective because the primary motion "deflects" that planet away from the angle it is closest to. However if that planet happens to also be in the whole sign angle, then it's actions (or requests to the oikodektor) may be picked up by the domicile or exaltation lord and made manifest. It however would have trouble manifesting on its own. It makes special sense (imo) to consider trigon lords, predomination and the chart rulers (Oikodespotes and co-oikodespotes) in this way because they have a role that involves domination and strength. And when it comes to topics, some topics can be either slack (unnoticible) or tense (highly visible), but the cadency of the place does not change the nature of the topic; it still has the same collection of significations._________________Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

It's really hard for me to understand why so many astrologers prefer to use the WHS which is against astronomical phenomena, reason and philosophy. In the sky planets movements as seen from earth are composed by two basic movements: the movements along the zodiac which is the movement in the sign direction, the movement of the Others and the movement or rotation around the earth, of raising and setting which is the movement of the primum mobile, the movement of the Same. The first movement is established by the Sun and therefore by changes in solar lighting during the annual revolution which is divided in twelves parts starting from the vernal equinox. The second movement is established by the movement of the primum mobile (i.e. the apparent motion of the celestial sphere caused by earth rotation) which is divided into twelve unequal hours starting from the horoscope. The division of the ecliptic is composed by twelve equal part, the signs of the zodiac, because the equinox and solstice axis divide the annual circle in four equal quarter and each quarter is divided in the equal part which correspond to the beginning of season, the maximum of season and the decline of season. The twelve divisions of the daily planetary trajectories during the day and night are unequal because the duration of day and of night are not equal during the year except at equinoxes. A planet rising at the eastern horizon must be in conjunction with the horoscope for definition of horoscope since it is rising with the same portion of the ecliptic named after that sign. A planet culminating must be aligned with the celestial meridian corresponding the the south, the local meridian. If we use the WHS we miss completely the real astronomical meaning of the houses: because a planet in the X house it's approaching the culmination, it's maximum highness in the sky but if we use the WHS a planet can be in the X house and decline from its culmination. If we use the WHS we miss completely the philosophical foundation of astrology and celestial movement: the movement of planets and luminaries along the ecliptic is independent from the movement of the planet around the earth by rotation so the movement of other is independent from the movement of the same. Therefore the two movement must be measured according to their own nature. The division is still based on the same principal of equal division in twelve parts but the movements are different and they are made in different times. The zodiac sign of thirty equal degrees are division of the planetary motions along the ecliptic and the house of thirty equinoctial degree, which correspond to different ecliptic or zodiacal degree can not be equivalent.

I cannot explain the jargon of Robert Schmidt but in Amy's chart if we use WSH then what of Luna in Capricorn? Is that eighth house? Then look at at the nodal axis. I seem to recall Ben Dykes stating that his older sources would use WSH or quadrant depending on whatever looked more interesting so perhaps we could be more pragmatic in these matters rather than expecting authorities to share our own obsessive exactitudes_________________Matthew Goulding

It's really hard for me to understand why so many astrologers prefer to use the WHS which is against astronomical phenomena, reason and philosophy...

Paulo Mendez,

You posted the same statement on FB. What are you trying to accomplish here? This forum especially has a much higher standard for scholarship and should not be used to bash a particular idea. It is far too premature to guess what really works in so called "reality"._________________Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

It's really hard for me to understand why so many astrologers prefer to use the WHS which is against astronomical phenomena, reason and philosophy.

WSH works! (at least through my own empirical observation of events). It is not against astronomical phenomenon (i.e. it doen't contradict) rather, it is an example of contradistinction. It is not against philosophy as it is at least aligned with Platonic principles of forms in the world of being (WSH) and the world of becoming (dynamic house systems). It is not against reason as it is philosophically brought out via rationale mode!

Quote:

... The second movement is established by the movement of the primum mobile (i.e. the apparent motion of the celestial sphere caused by earth rotation) which is divided into twelve unequal hours starting from the horoscope.

It shouldn't be said this way! The ancient astrologers esp. the greeks, love symmetry. What you see as being unequal is the exact opposite to them. They see it as equal! The apparent motion of the celestial sphere results in the rising and setting of the celestial bodies. The rising and setting of the most important celestial body (the sun) results in the day and night. Hence, they divided the length of the day / night into 12 EQUAL space of time that we observe as unequals because we use a different clock!

Quote:

The division of the ecliptic is composed by twelve equal part, the signs of the zodiac,

This is correct - EQUAL...!

BUT the following

Quote:

because the equinox and solstice axis divide the annual circle in four equal quarter and each quarter is divided in the equal part which correspond to the beginning of season, the maximum of season and the decline of season.

... is wrong. The philosophy of EQUALLY dividing the passage of the of the sun (ecliptic into 12 EQUAL signs) is not because there are equal quarters. Astronomically and from observations, the length of the seasons are NOT equal. So, you see that through observations, lengths of the seasons are unequal (just like dynamic house system) but we define them as equal through reasoning (like WSH!!!!).

Quote:

...A planet rising at the eastern horizon must be in conjunction with the horoscope for definition of horoscope since it is rising with the same portion of the ecliptic named after that sign.

You said "a planet". This is NOT true!. A planet rising at the eastern horizon will only be in conjunction with the horoscope (by definition is on the ecliptic) if the planet is exactly on the ecliptic! - like the sun!

Thus your arguments below about the culmination are also not... - you know where I am going with this...

Quote:

The zodiac sign of thirty equal degrees are division of the planetary motions along the ecliptic and the house of thirty equinoctial degree, which correspond to different ecliptic or zodiacal degree can not be equivalent.

They are divided equally and made equivalent through the rationale of Platonic philosophy.

Astrology, and ancient astrology in particular is not an empirical science as our modern science. In addition I can say that horary house system works as well and even better.

junaid wrote:

It shouldn't be said this way! The ancient astrologers esp. the greeks, love symmetry. What you see as being unequal is the exact opposite to them. They see it as equal! The apparent motion of the celestial sphere results in the rising and setting of the celestial bodies. The rising and setting of the most important celestial body (the sun) results in the day and night. Hence, they divided the length of the day / night into 12 EQUAL space of time that we observe as unequals because we use a different clock!

Of couse they are equal. Equal in equinotial time!!! But this equinotial time originate unequal zodiacal houses because the ecliptic is oblique and in different place on earth rise, culminate and set in different zodiacal degrees originating unequal houses and quadrant measured by zodiacal signs.

Quote:

The philosophy of EQUALLY dividing the passage of the of the sun (ecliptic into 12 EQUAL signs) is not because there are equal quarters. Astronomically and from observations, the length of the seasons are NOT equal. So, you see that through observations, lengths of the seasons are unequal (just like dynamic house system) but we define them as equal through reasoning (like WSH!!!!).

The are unequal if they are measured by days, but they shouldn't be measure by days as day length changes. Here we must remember here the greek geocentric model of planetary motion: the Sun is moving with uniform speed on a circle having center not exactly in the earth center but in an eccentric, rendering the apparent not uniform solar motion . The greek divided in 360 degrees the circle where the sun is moving regularly and each quadrant (from equinox to solstice) is composed by 90 equal degrees.

Quote:

You said "a planet". This is NOT true!. A planet rising at the eastern horizon will only be in conjunction with the horoscope (by definition is on the ecliptic) if the planet is exactly on the ecliptic! - like the sun!

Of couse it's true because a planet rising is at the horoscope. If you observe the real sky you can figure out why it's so. The are not exactly in the same place in the sky but they are doing the same thing (rising) at the same time. It's not matter of space but of time! When a planet is rising it appears on the eastern horizon from below the earth and show up close to the easter horzion. The ascendant or the horoscope is the portion of zodiac which is rising at the eastern horizon coming from below the earth and appering just above earth. Very rarely this conjunct can be a conjucntion by body but that does not change the fact that it si actually a conjunction as the fact that two planet are conjuncted in a zodiacal degree does not mean they are conjuncted by body because of the southern or nothern zodiacal latitude of planets.

Quote:

They are divided equally and made equivalent through the rationale of Platonic philosophy.

Unfortunaltely it's not easy to understand Plato philosophy and episteme and without knowing the thought of the Ancients and their weltanschauung and in particolar without knowing the actual sky motion as observed by naked eye we can misunderstand their words.

I cannot explain the jargon of Robert Schmidt but in Amy's chart if we use WSH then what of Luna in Capricorn? Is that eighth house? Then look at at the nodal axis. I seem to recall Ben Dykes stating that his older sources would use WSH or quadrant depending on whatever looked more interesting so perhaps we could be more pragmatic in these matters rather than expecting authorities to share our own obsessive exactitudes

Hello Mjacob

Yes, true, the Moon shifts too in the 8th house. I was more focused on Jupiter because being in its domicile it could give a lot. But not sure it does in effect.

Thanks for your response Margherita. I first looked at the chart of Amy Winehouse some years ago but remember something about Gemini rising suggesting a tendency to an illness she suffered while young
It is no doubt a coincidence that this renewed interest occurs as a new biopic about her is released in the cinema
Matthew_________________Matthew Goulding

Practice consistently shows that a combination of both whole sign and semi-arc houses (like Alcabitius) both yield good results. In his course, Zoller gives an example of a chart of a drug addict and discusses the mass of planets in the 6th house and how it contributed to the native's struggles and sub par lifestyle. He mentions that by whole sign houses several of the planets (the Sun and Moon being two) would be angular in the 7th and therefore this would change the situation. His response is that one cannot just blindly apply techniques rigidly to any chart and that care has to be taken to see how the chart functions and what it is trying to tell us.

I myself have found that there are charts where whole signs speak to me more than semi-arc, but in other cases it is the reverse. I always take into account the sign on the MC and any planets placed near the MC/IC axis, but I also look at the whole sign 10th to see if it has anything to contribute. Repetition is more important than any single factor and so if we were considering something like profession and the whole sign 10th gave us a repetition, whereas the sign on the actual MC did not seem to contribute to the delineation (or where the chart was leading us) then it would be foolish to deny the influence of the 10th sign from the Asc. For example a cursory glance I did the other day at the chart of HR Giger revealed that Venus was exalted in Pisces but in the 9th by Alcabitius (in the 8th by whole signs). The 10th sign is Taurus, although the MC falls in Aries conjunct Mars/Saturn/SN. Venus was also conjunct the Part of Vocation. Again my cursory glance revealed that Venus and and Taurus as the 10th sign more accurately depicted the native's profession (Venus being in the 8th sign may very well have contributed to the morbid themes present in his artwork).

In a friend's chart I am doing I find Sag rising at 20 dgrs and Saturn at 0dgrs Capricorn in the 1st house and then the Moon at 10dgrs Capricorn also in the 1st. Now Saturn rules the 2nd via Alcabitius, but via whole signs the situation makes the most sense to me. Here is why: Mercury rules the 7th and is in the 11th house but 12th sign (Scorpio), the fall of the Moon. The Moon is very closely sextile to Mercury. What I've noticed is that my friend works very hard to make money (powerful Saturn in the 2nd) but then has a habit of spending this money in ways that are detrimental (Moon in detriment in Capricorn, the 2nd sign/house via whole signs) and create debt (Moon rules the 8th). Many a time he spends his money on women he is dating and once again this creates problems for him (Mercury (L7) in the fall of the Moon and the 12th sign from the Asc). This happens very easily and almost unconsciously (sextile). So in this situation I was compelled to look at WS houses as being more accurate of what I know about my friend.

I agree with Lazarus it can be helpful to look at charts with other systems in natal charts.

I suppose my difficulty is in an area like horary. It seems to me at least that we need a much clearer delineation in horary with less room for all inclusiveness. You surely cant hedge your bets on say the significators for an employer in a job related horary question if the MC and WSH/Equal 10th ruler are different by sign can you?

Mark_________________‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly

I would agree with you there Mark. I actually haven't gotten a horary question from anyone on profession. Yet there are times where whole sign houses made more sense in horary, like when I asked about the recent Israel elections (I don't remember the chart at the moment). Upon reviewing why I had mis-judged the answer to my own query I realized that whole signs gave me the correct answer (I think this was because I had to turn the chart from the 9th). But in other situations whole signs would not show the answer, like when I asked a question regarding the arrival of a book I had ordered, so as to test my timing capabilities, the chart with regiomontanus cusps showed the Moon applying to conjoin the 2nd house cusp in about three degrees and the package arrived three days from the time I asked the question.

Just reread what you wrote and realized I made a mistake as you didn't say profession, you said employer. I have done horary charts concerning employment and bosses, but I can't think of any charts where the MC wasn't in the 10th sign from the Asc. So that hasn't come up for me at this time. In such a situation, though, it would probably be wise to find out what the person's boss was like. If it was a situation where Gemini was the 10th sign but the MC was in Taurus and Virgo was rising, making Mercury significator of the querent, we would probably want to take Venus as significator of the boss (thus ignoring the 10th sign), especially if said person was female. Or if the situation was such that Aries was rising and the MC fell in Sagittarius, again it would probably be wise to ask about the person's employer to see if they were more Saturnian or more Jupiterian IF the chart wasn't making things clear. But again I have no practical examples from my own experience in mind, so this is all very speculative.

I first posted this first on my Facebook account. In case you haven't seen this, it's very relevant to this discussion here:

Quote:

There's something very important that always seems to get left out of any debate about house systems and I'm surprised that with so many scholastically inclined individuals participating that it hasn't been pointed out yet. Something that anyone studying the accuracy of house systems needs to investigate is the semantic fields of words. This is something that Robert Schmidt has said he's dealt with in translations of astrological texts, but the same goes for mapping a keyword to a house, sign, etc... Our words in English don't have a 1:1 correspondence of meanings to words in other languages. So unless you believe as some Hellenist's believed that "the planets taught us to speak", then it's not a reasonable assumption to assume that a given keyword maps to only 28.73419 degrees of one house. There is often significant overlap and it's possible for some keywords to map to several houses. "Children" for instance was given not just to the 5th, but also to the 4th, 10th and 11th.

For this reason whenever an astrologer says "something works for me", I'm singularly unimpressed. Those of us practicing should be aware of observation bias (because you are part of the experiment). You've experienced this bias when you observe that you've had a string of Cancer/Capricorn risings consulting you in the last month and haven't seen any predominant fire sign individuals during the same time frame (insert your own particular observation here). This is because you attract clients based upon issues in your own chart. You know this, so why do you assume that this goes for everybody? What you think is a "best system" based upon "empirical evidence" is really a cross contamination of subjective experience with objective phenomena. This can't be accepted in any serious scientific experiment as confirmation of anything pertaining to the objective.

The "house system" controversy has been around for centuries and no one has solved it using the usual arguments, but instead, house systems (including the sidereal issue, asteroids, lots, etc) have turned into a "tower of Babel". I think it unlikely that pursuing empirical evidence or statistical studies will solve the issue of what house system works best. IMO, the biggest hole that has to be fixed in our logic is in understanding the theoretical foundation(s). So if you really want to solve this issue, my suggestion is forget about empiricism and start studying philosophy.

Very good point Curtis. I agree completely. Because our approach to astrology reflects our own life/psyche/chart we cannot hope to find a one size fits all with any astrological techniques. A philosophical approach to house systems and astrology in general is the best place to start and was advocated for heavily by Dane Rudhyar, yet many astrologers, whether modern or traditional, neglect this area of study and their astrology suffers for it. Trying to say that this or that system of houses is the BEST is ridiculous and petty. It is clearly based on insecurity and is the same as arguing that one genre of music is the best or one religion is the best. The answer to which is the best, from an egotistical point of view, is always the same: MINE. The mind craves security and it wants to reduce everything to some kind of pure logic, but reality is not so rational as our minds would like and so this is impossible. Rather than accept this fact most people, astrologers included, try to satisfy the mind with more and more concepts and logic, instead of satisfying the soul and approaching life from the heart. We must approach astrology as an art and as a science, not just the latter (I would advocate for more of the art part). As Lilly says "mix discretion with art". It is good to experiment with many techniques and house systems until one finds what seems to consistently work for them personally. Then the next step is to avoid becoming arrogant and emotionally attached to whatever system one uses.

Contact Deborah Houlding
| terms and conditions
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated